RUSSIA-The Future 2015 & on

[Doll]

USA Today Publishes Map of Ukraine Without Crimea

hile the Western world refuses to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea, one of its largest newspapers just did.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/usa-today-publishes-map-of-ukraine-without-crimea/

[lordtiberius]

Jay, there are no Western arms in Ukraine.  They are on their own.  Stop hyping the west, it is shameful what is going on.

BTW, Billy, Jay isn't posting Ukrainian propaganda, its Western weenie diplo speak.

[JayH]

More for Russia to look forward to!!  If Nato decides to send ground troops into Ukraine it is most likely the first in will be Polish troops-they will be only a matter of hours from the frontline.They also have nearly as much distaste for Russia as Ukrainian troops-- and they have substantial numbers of relatively well trained troops who have been in preparation for nearly a year now.

Poland pulls troops to the Ukrainian border
Джерело: fakty.ictv.ua

Poland doesn't rule out arms supplies to Ukraine, yet prioritizes diplomacy

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/poland-doesnt-rule-out-arms-supplies-to-ukraine-yet-prioritizes-diplomacy-380340.html

[AkMike]

They can also send in troops (with permission from UA of course) without the NATO banner. (I believe) Just as they can send arms in without NATO's flag.

[fathertime]

I happened to be browsing the internet and found this opinion piece on Reuters.  It represents a more realistic viewpoint then many others as I'm seeing more and more people coming around. I thought I would share it here:


http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/11/no-a-russian-military-occupation-of-ukraine-isnt-on-the-table/


No, a Russian military occupation of Ukraine isn’t on the table


excerpt:
Arming Ukraine will not fix the country’s huge military imbalance with Russia. Unless, of course, Western allies are ready to shell out $70 billion per year. That’s what it would take to match Russia’s military. Finding that kind of cash is unlikely. Ukraine is having a hard time getting the estimated $15 billion it needs to avoid default this year. Importantly, a war-fatigued United States, which is preparing for presidential elections in 2016, would scarcely seem to be open to military involvement in yet another country.At the same time, solving the problem is a lot more complex that simply providing Ukraine with weapons. The country is ravaged by corruption, and its political system and economy is in shambles. Any military support would have to be conditional upon effective reforms. Without that, arming Ukraine would be irresponsible —  it would be no different to giving a gun to a crook.[/font]

[BillyB]

Poland doesn't rule out arms supplies to Ukraine, yet prioritizes diplomacy

The key word in the article is "future". Poland's stance on supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine "today" is a big "NO". Let's not prematurely celebrate until someone is brave enough to give Ukrainians the weapons they need for their fight for freedom.


No, no, no


And NO

They can also send in troops (with permission from UA of course) without the NATO banner. (I believe) Just as they can send arms in without NATO's flag.

That is true but as the articles I posted above show they aren't willing to send in arms, they definately won't send in their troops. They probably had a talk with Germany and America and were told if they get involved with Ukraine on their own, they are on their own if Russia invades Poland.

[Boethius]

I happened to be browsing the internet and found this opinion piece on Reuters.  It represents a more realistic viewpoint then many others as I'm seeing more and more people coming around. I thought I would share it here:


http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/11/no-a-russian-military-occupation-of-ukraine-isnt-on-the-table/


No, a Russian military occupation of Ukraine isn’t on the table


excerpt:
Arming Ukraine will not fix the country’s huge military imbalance with Russia. Unless, of course, Western allies are ready to shell out $70 billion per year. That’s what it would take to match Russia’s military. Finding that kind of cash is unlikely. Ukraine is having a hard time getting the estimated $15 billion it needs to avoid default this year. Importantly, a war-fatigued United States, which is preparing for presidential elections in 2016, would scarcely seem to be open to military involvement in yet another country.At the same time, solving the problem is a lot more complex that simply providing Ukraine with weapons. The country is ravaged by corruption, and its political system and economy is in shambles. Any military support would have to be conditional upon effective reforms. Without that, arming Ukraine would be irresponsible —  it would be no different to giving a gun to a crook.

Go to the conclusion.  Stronger sanctions. 

[fathertime]

Go to the conclusion.  Stronger sanctions.

I saw that part about IF the west wants to get tougher...and it may well be a better decision then sending arms.


Fathertime!   

[JayH]

Smoking Putin Out of His Cave

To arm or not to arm, that is the question.

With battles raging in eastern Ukraine, it should be abundantly clear that the Euro-Atlantic community is involved in the most serious conflict since the end of the Cold War — less bloody, so far, but more dangerous than the Balkan wars. Absent a true breakthrough in the Angela Merkel-François Hollande effort to broker peace this week, the United States must decide whether to provide weapons systems to Ukraine.

This decision is fraught with danger; regardless of what the Obama administration decides to do, blood will be spilled. After leading thinkers from three think tanks, and Secretary of Defense nominee Ash Carter, advocated (in Carter’s case, hinted at) providing lethal weapons, various commentators typically skeptical of muscular foreign policy — including John Mearsheimer and, in Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt — spoke out against such a step. Like the advocates of further intervention, they have reasonable arguments: I agree with both of them that Ukraine should remain neutral, for example.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/vladimir-putin-why-barack-obama-should-arm-ukraine-bush-administration-georgia/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%20%5BManual%5DRS2%2F10

[JayH]

Smoking Putin Out of His Cave

To arm or not to arm, that is the question.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/vladimir-putin-why-barack-obama-should-arm-ukraine-bush-administration-georgia/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%20%5BManual%5DRS2%2F10

It would be foolish after Georgia, after Crimea, and after what has transpired in eastern Ukraine to believe that Putin still doesn’t quite “get it” — that a bit more forbearance, or a little more understanding of how our mistakes fueled Russia’s resentment, will bring him to his senses. Rather, it is many in the West, for ideological or economic reasons, who don’t get it: Putin rejects a “win-win” liberal international order. It is he who plays by a different set of rules that harken back to 1914.

That is why the time has come to take risks, and why Barack Obama must introduce military force — however limited — into a dynamic that affects more than just Ukraine. Not because these steps will necessarily deter Vladimir Putin, but because it steels America and our allies, generates a new unity around the reality that is today’s Kremlin, and sends a clear signal to Moscow that we have bent and acquiesced for long enough. That the period of testing is over, and that Washington will resist, not submit.

[Photo Guy]

How can a country that is being slowly invaded, remain 'neutral'? That does not make sense to me. Weapons should be supplied in the same way that they have been arriving from the east. 

[JayH]

How can a country that is being slowly invaded, remain 'neutral'? That does not make sense to me. Weapons should be supplied in the same way that they have been arriving from the east.

PG-- so many writers cannot see the obvious--or do not care about the tragedy of loss of life. There is a constant idea that keeps coming up- a neutral Ukraine- that is how they could/would have been prior to the Russian invasion--but it will never be possible again. Ukrainians are united against Russia now-- and the need for "help" is paramount-- and given that that help needs to come from the west--it will deem Ukraine  as  non neutral in the future.
What so many are still not seeing-- nothing will appease Russia.

[lordtiberius]

There are no Western arms in Ukraine.  Stop hyping the West.  A promise to pay for two cheeseburgers next Tuesday is not money.  Its pathetic.  With all these dead people, Merkel, Obama, et al agree with FT that there is no slow motion rape and that we aren't next or that a nuclear shl@ng isn't in our face.

[JayH]

So much written today worth reading-- I am impressed how well the media is getting this crisis now-surely the hold out ;leaders are taking notice of what near enough every one else can see now-

Putin’s war on the West
As Ukraine suffers, it is time to recognise the gravity of the Russian threat—and to counter it

HE IS ridiculed for his mendacity and ostracised by his peers. He presides over a free-falling currency and a rapidly shrinking economy. International sanctions stop his kleptocratic friends from holidaying in their ill-gotten Mediterranean villas. Judged against the objectives Vladimir Putin purported to set on inheriting Russia’s presidency 15 years ago—prosperity, the rule of law, westward integration—regarding him as a success might seem bleakly comical.

But those are no longer his goals, if they ever really were. Look at the world from his perspective, and Mr Putin is winning. For all his enemies’ machinations, he remains the Kremlin’s undisputed master. He has a throttlehold on Ukraine, a grip this week’s brittle agreement in Minsk has not eased. Domesticating Ukraine through his routine tactics of threats and bribery was his first preference, but the invasion has had side benefits. It has demonstrated the costs of insubordination to Russians; and, since he thinks Ukraine’s government is merely a puppet of the West (the supposed will of its people being, to his ultracynical mind, merely a cover for Western intrigues), the conflict has usefully shown who is boss in Russia’s backyard. Best of all, it has sown discord among Mr Putin’s adversaries: among Europeans, and between them and America.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter?fsrc=scn%2Ftw_ec%2Fputin_s_war_on_the_west

[lordtiberius]

So much written today worth reading-- I am impressed how well the media is getting this crisis now-surely the hold out ;leaders are taking notice

Stop writing these inane posts.  The focus is arming Ukraine

[LAman]

Stop writing these inane posts.  The focus is arming Ukraine

Of course talk is cheap...whether is to be the politicians, the press or members of this forum....what can be, what will be, what should be....

Actions will always speak louder than words!!

[LAman]

don't know if it matters around here but I read something I didn't know( among many):

Moldovans can now travel visa-free to Europe's Schengen zone and to wean them from Russian gas, Romania has built a 43 km (27 mile) pipeline across the border, inaugurated last year on the 23rd anniversary of Moldovan independence from the Soviet Union.


http://www.trust.org/item/20150215080103-nxkgi/

[lordtiberius]

Of course talk is cheap...whether is to be the politicians, the press or members of this forum....what can be, what will be, what should be....

Actions will always speak louder than words!!

We agree.

[JayH]

Still more from the Kremlin-



The Kremlin Pulls on Georgia


It’s time for the West to stop taking Tbilisi for granted.


As Russian forces consolidate their gains in Ukraine over the flat protests of Western leaders, the specter of Russian revanchism is keeping much of Eastern Europe on edge. But lumbering tanks and legions of insta-separatists aren’t the only concern. Ukraine isn’t Russia’s only target.

Perhaps most alarming are the warning signs going off in Georgia, a steadfast Euro-Atlantic partner where a pro-Western political consensus has long been a foreign-policy calling card. A long-standing opponent of Russian military adventurism, Georgia sought escape velocity from Russian regional dominance by courting membership in Euro-Atlantic structures and earned a reputation as an enthusiastic and credible Western partner. But Western quiescence in the face of Russian territorial aggression is starting to have an effect.Western quiescence in the face of Russian territorial aggression is starting to have an effect. After decades of acrimony in which Georgians have watched Russian proxies occupy 20 percent of their territory and ethnically cleanse some 300,000 of their compatriots, certain groups are starting to ask if maintaining close ties to the West is worth all the loss. Increasingly, Georgians are beginning to think that it isn’t.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/09/the-kremlin-pulls-on-georgia/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2014_EditorsPicks

[mendeleyev]

Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin's handpicked leader of the Republic of Chechnya, is a big fan of Vladimir Putin. How big you ask? Well, he just gave an interview to Lenta.ru, a Russian (Kremlin controlled) news publication. Since it is in Russian language only, here are my translated excerpts from the interview:


"Vladimir Putin is my idol. I would like him to be president until the end of his life. I love him as only a man can love a man. He is a man of words, he brought peace to Chechnya. We were in the hands of bandits, alcoholic Yeltsin bombed us. Those who criticize Putin are my personal enemies. As long as Putin supports me, I can do everything. Allahu akbar!" (Mendeleyev note: it was Putin as PM who advocated the bombing, not once but twice.)

"Such a man is a godsend for Russia. As long as he has health, we need to bow down so that he will rule. Putin has saved our people, he is our hero. Not only has he saved Chechnya, he saved Russia. So how can we not worship him? I never flatter, but Putin is our gift of God; he gave us freedom and he is the saviour of our people."

"I never wanted to be president (of Chechen Republic). I always had a dream to become a hero of the nation. As for Putin's cult of personality? Yes, in a good sense. The fact that his photo hangs everywhere does not mean the cult of personality. Rather, it is the correct policy. Even if someone were to hang a portrait of Putin and Kadyrov in the forest, no one will harm it."

"I intend to ask the President to me to allow me to go to the Donbas; I would protect the interests of those citizens who today are fighting there. If necessary, we will die for Russia in Ukraine. We Chechens are warriors and will sacrifice our lives for Russia."

"On behalf of the Chechen people we congratulate Vladimir Putin with the return of the city our glory - Sevastopol - and the peninsula of Crimea to Russia!" (Mendeleyev note: Kadyrov needs to study history as it was his Chechen ancestors who fought alongside their brother Muslim Tatars against Russian imperialism during the conquest of Crimea by Russia.)

How does he feel about Putin's release of Mikhail Khodorkovsky?
"His own mindless actions placed himself (Khodorkovsky) on a cross. He declared himself the enemy of all Muslims in the world. Hence, my personal enemy." (Mendeleyev note: not true, however Khodorkovsky is Jewish, and thus hated by many Muslims.)


As for Khodorkovsky living in Switzerland, he promises to someday punish the Swiss:
"I am sure that in his beloved Switzerland there are thousands of law-abiding citizens who will someday be called to account for giving refuge to this fugitive felon. Our punishment will be tough and painful."

Kadyrov concluded the interview by damning social media, television, the i-phone, and women who do not cover their heads in public. He railed against Europe and Western culture, and then hinted that the practice of polygamy would cure many of the ills in society. (Mendeleyev note: Polygamy is not prohibited in Chechnya.)

"Polygamy is part of our tradition, our Muslim religion. As an example, if a young girl divorces and lives with another man, her brother will kill her and her new man. We have very severe customs. Better for a woman to be a second or third wife than to be killed. We are very confident that today we need polygamy. There is no such law commanding it, but I say to everyone: those who have the desire and ability, it is necessary to take a second wife."

(Mendeleyev note: Kadyrov is in Putin's inner circle and although he pretends to be modest, there are those who believe that he aspires to someday lead Russia after Putin retires.)

Photo below: Kadyrov is to the left, next to Putin. He is wearing the leather jacket and beard. His father was appointed President of Chechnya but later assassinated. Putin then Ramzan appointed as his successor. As you might expect, Chechnya is a virtual police state and ruled with an iron fist.

[lordtiberius]

This is the deal with Kadyrov
Eartha Kitt- My heart Belongs to Daddy:

[JayH]

Not so much new news--but more information of the results of the Russian invasion-- and some insight into the future for Russia and Russians.


Crimean Gangland: Putin’s Seaside Mafia State


The strangling of democracy in Russia has been exported to Crimea. The list of human-rights abuses against Tatars and anyone who opposes or is suspected of opposing Russian rule is a long one. The report mentions several cases of torture, disappearances, illegal searches and seizure. There have been several attacks on religious freedom, namely Ukrainian churches and Tatar mosques; the Russian Orthodox Church, an instrument of the Kremlin today like it was during the czar, is the only religious institution free from persecution. Journalism has been outlawed; the crackdown on freedom of speech includes the closure of media companies like ATR, a television network that broadcasts in the Crimean Tatar language. The courts are in shambles, with only Russian citizens allowed to be judges; at least 15,000 judicial cases are in legal limbo. There’s no recourse, especially when so-called “self defense” militias rule with impunity.

On the bright side, the report outlines steps that can be taken to protect those in Crimea. According to international law, this is the responsibility of Ukraine as much as it is Russia’s. The report recommends that Ukraine, with the help of the international community, establish a special court to investigate alleged human-rights abuses. The mix of old school and digital resistance tactics that the report recommends—samizdat (the underground printing and smuggling of publications) to the creation of a database collecting eyewitness accounts—can also aid Crimean residents.

“[The database is] a very powerful tool of its own,” says Bilych. “It tells the occupying power that we’re working on [building legal cases].” One can’t help but wonder if Russia today, like Russia during the Cold War, could be driven into collapse not by an arms race but through expensive litigation. For a White House that’s set on a “banks not tanks” strategy, sinking Russia with legal actions must certainly be an attractive option.

“[Russia drags] things out so long that everyone gives up,” Franz J. Sedelmayer, a German businessman who successfully sued Russia for $6.8 million after a 20-year legal battle, told The New York Times. “You cannot give in. Russia only respects the language of strength. Nothing else works.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/crimean-gangland-putin-s-seaside-mafia-state.html

[JayH]

The following is an interview with Thomas D. Grant, senior research fellow of Wolfson College and senior associate of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, both at the University of Cambridge.

I particularly like his conclusion !!  It does highlight what is in store for Russia in the future.

"To answer the question directly: the full normalization of relations with Russia must await Russia’s reversal of its aggression against Ukraine. This means the withdrawal of Russia from Crimea and the Donbas. It also means reparation from Russia for the injuries that Russia’s aggression to date has caused Ukraine and others. This is not about punitive measures against Russia. It is about appropriate measures that Russia must take to reverse its serious breaches of international law and to reverse the consequences of those breaches."

Russia and Ukraine: A Legal Perspective

MOTYL: Your recently published book, Aggression against Ukraine, argues that Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and war in eastern Ukraine is a challenge to international law and global public order at large. Has Russia effectively destroyed the postwar security architecture in Europe?

GRANT: One hopes that there is still time to save the post-1945 system of public order in Europe. The Soviet Union, whatever its faults, had a keen appreciation for territorial stability. The Helsinki Final Act enshrines that appreciation. The Final Act addresses Western concerns over human rights; but the USSR insisted that it also secure the boundaries of Europe against any future attempt to change them by force or threat. In the case of Germany’s borders, the postwar treaty practice went even further: no change at all is permitted, those borders being legally entrenched beyond the general privilege that international law accords to territorial settlements.

Reasons for pessimism about the postwar security architecture however exist. The Russian Federation today seems to have jettisoned the USSR’s relative conservatism. Instead of the principle of territorial stability, the Russian Federation since March 2014 espouses an historicist view that says that old boundaries might be brought again to life, including by force if Russia so chooses. International law had good reason for moving beyond historical claims as a solvent of settled boundaries. Every country has a history. If the law permitted a country to plead new boundaries on the basis of whatever page of its history it chose, then claims to revise the territorial settlement would be without end. Law aims to achieve predictability. A history-based revision of modern territorial relations is inimical to law. In any event, even valid claims are not to be prosecuted by force or threat. We have an orderly process to deal with valid claims—look at the docket of the International Court of Justice for a demonstration of how that process functions when states accord with it. That is the process that we should hope survives the current crisis. And the stable borders that so benefited Europe for 70 years, it is to be hoped, are not thrown into doubt by Russia’s attacks on Ukraine.






http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/russia-and-ukraine-legal-perspective

[JayH]

The rise in the numbers predicting the demise of the Russian Federation as we know it is growing support all the time-- as the reality of what Putin has created becomes clearer.


‘There will be no Russia soon': Russian financier names cause of imminent collapse of Russia
On his page on Facebook, a Russian financier Slava Rabinovich commented on the policy of strengthening the military-industrial complex the Russian President Vladimir Putin relies on.

“A couple of months ago, Vladimir Ryzhkov visited Mikhail Sokolov on air of Radio Svoboda and lamented the fact that Putin’s geopolitical adventures were destroying the Russian military-industrial complex, because a huge part of the supply of components, systems, engines, etc. in the Russian arsenal belonged to the Ukrainian companies. Now they do not cooperate with the Russian military-industrial complex, and the Russian military-industrial complex will be destroyed.
In September 2014, in the first round of the Ukrainian sanctions against Russia, apart from other measures, it was banned to export a number of military goods. Now the government of Ukraine has approved an expanded package of sanctions. It is supposed that the sanctions list will include 156 legal entities and more than a thousand individuals, among whom will surely be many organizations and people from the Russian military-industrial complex.
But if the Russian defense industry, according to Vladimir Ryzhkov, is destroyed, will it be bad?
Russia will not need its military-industrial complex for the next 20-30 years. Russia needs receivership and the Marshall Plan. This statement would be wrong, if the Constitution of the Russian Federation acted in Russia, and there was society in the sense of ‘nation’. But we have nothing, and will not have, as long as it appears with the help of receivership as it was in West Germany after 1945 and de-Nazification.
The Russian military-industrial complex is doomed.
The Russian military-industrial complex has international sanctions imposed against it, which have long hammered the final nail in its coffin by a simple forward contract. The latest weapons of the XXI century and the sanctions against the Russian military-industrial complex are incompatible with each other.
The program of upgrading the Russian army for the period up to 2020 is just the greatest scheme of sawing 20 trillion rubles in the history of Russia, and nothing more. By 2020, some will become very rich, a lot of people will become very poor, but there will be no Russian military-industrial complex, as there will be no XXI century weapons.
When the ‘guns before butter’ choice  is made, in the conditions of attacks on other countries and international sanctions, there will be no guns, no butter, no country,” Rabinovich wrote on his page on Facebook.




http://joinfo.com/world/1007537_there-will-be-no-russia-soon-russian-financier-names-cause-of-imminent-collapse-of-russia.html

[JayH]

Numerous times over the last 18 months I have commented on the parlous state of the Russian economy( and a "few" times on why!!). Interestingly enough--more articles are appearing now commenting on the "missing" reserves-- and the resultant crisis it will create.
         Take note-- the critical stage is now here.From the article-- and  some very pertinent observations

"These nine months promise to be not simply interesting; they may turn out to be tragic. The predator who realizes that his death is imminent is capable of any gamble to preserve not only power and money but life as well. We know that from the behavior of Yanukovych. Putin now is in a similar situation. He is a living political and economic corpse. But this corpse holds the military capabilities of a disoriented country in his hands. This is why we must all be on high alert."


Vitaliy Portnikov is a Ukrainian editor and journalist. Born in Kyiv in 1967. Since 1989, he works as the analyst of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta, specializing in post-Soviet countries, and cooperates with the Russian and Ukrainian services of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Putin and the ruble

Presidential aide Andrey Belousov has acknowledged that Russia’s foreign currency reserves are insufficient to support the ruble.

This time the official relied on simple arithmetic. There are only some U.S. $300 billion left. Of that sum $120 billion are in the government’s Reserve Fund and the National Wealth Fund — in other words, this is money for social services. A portion of the remaining reserves is enough for nine months of imports of goods. After that comes economic collapse, default, and devaluation of the ruble. Therefore, these are consequences that the Russian government wants to avoid, but, based on everything, no longer can.

Belousov tried to explain why the Russian Central Bank will no longer spend resources to support the value of the “wooden” (pejorative term for ruble, meaning worthless – Ed.). And in doing so, he gave an accurate assessment of the current economic situation in Russia. It is the end result of the reckless policies of Vladimir Putin and his circle. And the problem lies not only in Russia’s war against Ukraine and in the West’s sanctions. The problem is that the St. Petersburg security goons and thugs have robbed the country and have brought it to the brink of the abyss. And now there is simply no way to avoid the fall. The only thing the Kremlin keeps hoping for is that prices for oil will begin to rise again. And if they don’t?

If they don’t, then after nine months some minister will have the task of telling Putin that the treasury is empty. And if Belousov understands this, then everyone else does as well: the collapse is inevitable. Then what to do in this situation? Wait for the crash? Escape? Try to get rid of Putin and his cronies? Or should the cronies get rid of Putin? But how?

These nine months promise to be not simply interesting; they may turn out to be tragic. The predator who realizes that his death is imminent is capable of any gamble to preserve not only power and money but life as well. We know that from the behavior of Yanukovych. Putin now is in a similar situation. He is a living political and economic corpse. But this corpse holds the military capabilities of a disoriented country in his hands. This is why we must all be on high alert.


http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/08/18/putin-and-the-ruble/